Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Afghan news

0 helpful
47 replies

by oz_media

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

Well it's been plastered all over newpapers and news reports for a few weeks now, how much is seen in the US and from whatnetworks? Do they have any credibility for reporting or are they seen as left wing nutbags?

Story in brief. Iraq is now rife with Al-Qaeda, they have kiled most leaders of small militant groups and recruited their fighters to fight for AlQaeda now.

Since the onset of the invasion, AlQaeda has apparently grown from 5% of the insurgency to over 85% as they have taken over so many groups.

Canadian troops have been sent to Afghanistan to control the ghrowth of the Taliban in Kandahar and try to restrict their movement into outlying areas. As they were practically left in Afghanistan to rebuild and convene in Kandahar in the interim, they have been providing even more resitance to Canadian troops on the ground near Kandahar than any resitance found during the initial conflict in Afghanistan.

In short, since the supposed 'defeat of AlQaeda' and thumbing of noses towards their threats of growth and vengeance on the free world, AlQaeda has becoem FAR stronger and far larger than ever before.

So what is reported elsewhere?

47 replies

by onbliss

Two local newspapers had articles on their front page about the resurgence of Taliban in Afghanistan. I did see reports on the escalation of suicide bombings in Afghanistan.

by oz_media

Has there been any debates as to whether or not troops should be stepped up in Afghanistan or is it a commonly forgotten issue for general public these days?

Just wondering because this is the information that seems to be filing our homes in all news forms, this has beenescalating since just before Canada took over combat operations near Kandahar. First it was a really left wing uproar over the fact that people didn't think our soldiers should be entered into active combat in Afhganistan. After they explained that they are actually trained for combat and expect it, the anti war, lefty's hushed.

But since then violence has become very intense, far more than the original resistance found when teh coalition troops first invaded, as ALQaeda and Taliban have grown in number around the middle east and the rest of the world.

Do you think the lack of focus is to keep positive feelings toward "Peace in the Middle East" ? (maybe a title for Iron Maiden's next tour)

Is it perhaps that fewer US troops are involved and it simply isn't an ongoing news issue?

I know you have said there was a couple of front pages and some news reports about suicide bombings, but I think that it would normally be deemed more newsworthy than that really. Iraqi issues seem to dominate news, as Afghanistan once did. Unfortunately the situation and resistance in Afghanistan seems to be equal or just as 'resistive' to the violence and terrorism seen in Iraq.

Is it perhaps that some people are trying to bring such news to the world and yet others are trying to diffuse focus? The whole left vs right issue where in the end, nobody really wins and gets the full story?

by onbliss

There does not seem to be much debate on troops in Afghanistan. I would say the media is more focused on the November elections.

In my opinion, the immediate concern for both the political parties is about controlling the Congress after the November elections.

Like I said, the front page articles referred to more about how Taliban was gaining grounds.

I try to watch BBC America in the mornings, and even BBC does not have much on Afghanistan. I am not sure if Afghanistan has receded into memory around the globe.

by dawgit

No-one has any more troops to spare. (they should have thought about that before they started setting fires all over the world) Every available Army, from any country, is over comitted. oops, not good for the good guys.

by protiusx

I would question the source of the reports. I know for a fact that the "bad guys" in Iraq are far fewer in number today than they were two years ago. I think what you may be hearing or reading is what was leaked from a report detailing that support amongst Sunni?s has increased from 5% to 85% for the insurgency over the last two years. These snippets from the report were intentionally leaked to mislead the press and the public to what is actually going on over there. Granted I came back to the US in February but I have a pretty good understanding of what was and is happening there.

There are external elements that are infiltrating Iraq and fomenting the unrest between the Sunnis and the Shiites in order to spark a civil war. This would ultimately hurt the US and this is the end game of the Islamo-fascists.

by oz_media

Actually the report was not that resistance had increased but that AlQaeda, who once held a VERY small part of the Iraqi insurgency )est.5%) has now infiltrated (for lack of a better word) the other NUMEROUS terror groups fighting in Iraq by killing leaders and adopting the fighters.

This was actually a Canadian reporter who was filming and interviewing some of the leaders of teh insurgency in Iraq as well as reporting from teh streets from the enemies perspective and while on location with the terroists as they fought off allied troops.

It was just like when they report with the local troops from the "front line", except from the other side.

EVer since Abu Ayyub al-Masri took over in Iraq, AlQaeda are reported to have taken over most smaller insurgent groups from a point where AlQeda was represented 5% of the insurgency to having control of over the majority now.

These are now supposedly fighters supported with extreme wealth and numbers that intiate far more carefully controlled and intricately planned attacks than the 'mad bombers' have done until now.

by onbliss

Pervez Musharraf appeared on Daily Show with Jon Stewart tonight. Though he did not want to get into a debate on Iraq war, he seemed to be of the opinion that Iraq war has caused extremism to increase. I doubt if his opinions are just bassed on some leaked report.

In order to better understand what you are saying, can you kind of substantiated the numbers two years ago and now - the basis for your facts?

by protiusx

There are some things that one is allowed to say and there are things that one is not allowed to say. I know that this sounds very cloak and dagger and that isn't my intent but I can't talk about my experiences there except for in the general. So, if this means I must concede then so be it.

by oz_media

Now THAT'S funny, I think. I don't think it is real though, is it? It seems to be a retouched pic, I don't get Newsweek (haven't in many years) so I wouldn't know. But I wouldn't be too surprised either. LOL

by ontheropes

[b]I[/b] did NOT touch it. I grabbed it with Gadwin Print Screen and have the .bmp right here at 100% resolution. I'll check MY local news-stand tomorrow and buy a copy if they have it.

Why would I lie?

I'll read Onbliss's link later. Maybe THAT will make sense.

Edit: I'll attach the 996KB .bmp file to an email to you for your inspection, just shoot me a peermail. I see the coloration difference. Was that purposeful or negligent?

If my local vendor [b]has[/b] a copy of Newsweek with that cover I'll buy a newspaper too and post a link to a picture of them together.

by dawgit

much about the US version, but the Europian version is what I did see on the news stands here. The general population has a better grasp of what's going on than I think exists in the US.

by oz_media

From a leader of one of these downtrodden and war torn countries.

Pakistan is QUESTIONABLY an ally of anyone these days. While it is in some people's best interests to control Pakistan, it's also known that they are laying one aide against the other now.

they OBVIOUSLY don't want Canadian troops on the ground, as stated several times indirectly. That is merely a hinderance to their own questionable actions. It's harder to support and harbor terrorist groups when you have someone watching your every move.

He says that Pakistanis are used to casualties such as this and it's the way of life for them. BUT it ISN'T a way of life in a free democratic system. What an idiot, the coalition should have stayed in Afghanistan and finished the job, not flown vitory flags from air craft carriers as they left, bound for Iraq. They should have methodically swept the middle east from one side to the other and back again as a full global effort. Instead they cried wolf just to take over Iraq and start Vietnam 2006.

by onbliss

...I would never trust Pakistan because of their past and present behavior. If thereare strong evidences to trust them, then I might. I will refrain from bashing them here, at this moment :-)

I agree with you, it was little too early to shift focus away from Afghanistan.

by mjwx

That?s the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) not ABC of America for clarification. I like these sources in particular because they don?t have (strong) biases and are generally informative, providing facts and using neutral language as opposed to inflammatory remarks and biased rhetoric.

Please feel free to check these sources out on your own. http://www.bbc.co.uk and http://www.abc.net.au/news .

What I can tell is that movements like Al-Qaeda in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan are becoming more prevalent (the Taliban never really went away they just lost power) is the lack of two things.

First and foremost is a livelihood. This really begins with the agriculture side of things. Farmers in Afghanistan have few options but to grow poppies (for heroin and opium) as it the climate is only suitable for a few things and the Afghan economy is in shambles making staple foods infeasible to grow. So we need to get the farmers on track and work up the food chain from there.

The second is security. Our forces can only do so much. This is a "teach a man how to fish" problem. The Afghan (Does the state have a name? Are they a commonwealth or confederacy?) state needs to be able to police and protect its own people. Everybody needs to face the fact that Afghanistan is in the Mid-East and populated by Arabs. So when I say Afghanistan needs to develop laws I mean they must develop laws their people will abide by, that means they will need to develop Arab laws (this does not mean a return to sharia law, Arabs are capable of being progressive in the right environment). Imposing western laws will be counter productive to an independent Afghan state.

This is pretty much the impression I got from the news that I read. I tend to avoid the politically motivated stuff from Newscorp and PBL, the Packers are often no better than Murdoch though they are on the consevative side. Albeit the politicaly biased BS is not as bad over here so long as you avoid the editorials.

by onbliss

Afghanistan is host to variety of people. Arabs are not one among them though. The Paktoons a.k.a Pashtun are sizeable in number. Tajiks and Uzbeks come second.

It is a Central Asian country and not in the middle-east. But sometimes it gets clubbed into middle-east.

by oz_media

The Canadian stations are also pretty good at showing views grom both sides, even while embedded in the enemy resistance to get THAT side of the story. BBC is a fav of mine also, and I even find Iraqi news quite interesting in contrast.

by onbliss

That "things" are not that well understood :-) Maybe they do so because parts of Pakistan borders Iran.

Being a member of OIC is one thing, but calling calling some of them as middle-eastern, owing to the proximity, is another.

I do have to agree that the term itself seems to have its meaning changed over time.

ps: I am reminded of the several times, here, where you have cautioned in the discussions about the existence of several groups with different agenda. And, how we can not treat them all as one.

by onbliss

My father retired from a para-military service (it is known in certain circles as such), and he kept certain things away from the family. He was a civilian though.

I don't want the specifics, can you elaborate a little bit more on the generals? Even if you can not, I would'nt jump to a conclusion that you must concede.

by protiusx

The military keeps track of every event that occurs in Iraq. These records include who was involved, what happened, who it happened to, where it happened and when possible why it happened. All this data is collected and sifted through to provide situational reports. What this data shows is that over the last 24 months the frequency of attacks has lessoned and the lethality of these attacks has increased. The military does a very good job when allowed to in disrupting the supply chains of weapons and combatants flowing in from Syria and Iran. The Iraqi people are very ready for stability and peace and for the US presence in Iraq to leave but they don't want the coalition forces to leave until they can provide for their own personal security. Al Qaeda?s own communications show that they believe they are being beaten and have lost the ability to affect the change in Iraq that is their goal. Their goal is civil war between the Shiites (Muqtada Al Sadr and his blood thirty crew) and the Sunnis (Use to be Al Zaraqoui but he's in Paradise now it's the Egyptian). The goal of the Iraqi government is to stop the violence perpetrated against them by foreign Islamists and legitimize themselves on the world stage. They have the second largest oil reserves in the world and they are anxious to begin the reconstruction of their country.
When one speaks to the average Iraqi he or she will identify themselves as first and foremost Iraqi rather than Sunni, Shiite or Kurd. There is a strong national unity that one does not see in the world press. I was there last year when Iraq won the football championship and they celebrated like there was no tomorrow. Tracer fire across the sky is a bit disconcerting but it is kind of pretty once you get use to it.

by oz_media

You said: " 24 months the frequency of attacks has lessoned and the lethality of these attacks has increased"

This also supports the reports I've heard. IF AlQaeda has taken over these smaller groups or insurgents, IF AlQaeda has stepped up to a more organized and planned resistance, IF AlQaeda actually does invest mroe money and equip their ranks with better weapnry, then it goes without saying that since AlQaeda infiltrated so many smaller terror groups, the fighting has become moreplanned, more effective and far more efficient.

by onbliss

[i]What this data shows is that over the last 24 months the frequency of attacks has lessoned and the lethality of these attacks has increased.[/i]

I will take your word for it. If that is what is happening, and [b]if[/b] it is any indication to the fact that the attacks would just taper off, then it is good for the Iraqis.

But if the increase in lethality is an indication that the "bad" guys are getting more efficient and better coordinators and planners, then it offers a dim view of the situation.

Display of national unity does not surprise me. Locals of a region usually put their differences, temporarily aside, to unite against an outsider.

by oz_media

It just looks like a graphic somebody made up and posted in humour somewhere online.

I knoe th eWhiet House has control over what is allowed to be reported during wars, but I didn't realize someone would actually censor/candy coated a cover that way to avoid headlines that may not be favourable.

by ontheropes

I have previously posted a picture at TR that I thought was legit because I didn't remember where I'd gotten it and it was from a spoof website.

What can I say... I get a wild hair up there too easily over that whole integrity thing sometimes. :|

by oz_media

Neil, in England East Indians, Pakistanis etc. are all considered Asians, in Canada, the word Asians is used to refer to Chinese, Japanese and other 'Oriental' Asians.

As far as 'Indians' is concerned, in England most people call East Indians, Pakistanis etc. just Indians or Asians. Obviously in North America, 'Indians' refers to native indians of the continent. Thus we use EAST Indians to describe Indians from the East, close enough anyway.

Mainly a cultural thing I think, perhaps a little predjudice also as to how aand why the terms are used.

by yobtaf

This is Tech Republic, It is for IT related issuse not international
affairs.
Please use the proper forum for this discussion.

Thank you

by onbliss

It is posted in Miscellaneous section. And members have been posting diverse non-IT related topics in this section for ages. TR has not come out and requested or demanded members to not post non-IT topics in this section. In the past TR has yanked out some posts because of the nature or contents of the post. Since TR has not explicitly objected, it can only mean that they are okay with such posts.

I don't see why IT folks can not discuss varied topics under the Miscellaneous section.

by oz_media

Well said, onbliss; and a little more eloquent than I may have been, depending on the time of day.

Yes, TR encourages such topics between peers here, that's what built this community to what it is, just like Sesame Street, "These are the people in your neighbourhood" ! :)

by yobtaf

Some of this stuff is interesting.

I'm fascinated to hear from someone who was in Iraq.

My big question is: How do we end this?
The present policy, to "stay the course", is not working as such
and it seems to me that an all out effort wold be required to get
the results that the country really wants. The problem is, that we
don't have the money or popular and international support to do
that.

It seems to me that it would have more effective to fight the war
in Afghanistan first, since that's where the enemy was. Iraq
should have been treated as a separate issue.

As usual, after an surprise attack, there is a perceived urgency to
act quickly. In retrospect, we probably should have taken more
time to think out our response.

by oz_media

I gues sthat's why I didn't get too rattled. It's just that we have a really casual and often very heated discussion group here. Every now and then someone pops in and starts flaming the forum for posting off topic discussions, it just gets a bit tiring after a while.

1) I think it has to be seen to an end, or conclusion of some form, leaving is not an option now.

2) Allied effort was initially suggested, but they wanted to wait for inspectors to finish (they were on schedule at that time)

3) You are right, rash execution of the invasion, SOLO, will go down in history as a huge error in political judgement with questionable motive (much like Vietnam)

4) The first turning point in Afghanistan was just days/weeks after removing the bulk of coalition forces and, almost more than anything, monetary support

5) Those who we were there to deter were the same people left in charge of security when troop pulled out, no more safe schools for women, bourqas returned (if not they were spat on once again)

It just goes on and on, the wells were destroyed, the only remaining woman in government was exiled and ran to the aid of the UN troops...and so on.

BUT, Iraq was justified and just as important, the Taliban were gone (for a holiday where they completely took over Kandahar again) and everyone was playing happy families....I just haven't figured out exactly who's media reported that, it sure wasn't ours.

by Member 25348569

Staying there does us no good and them no good. "Support our troops?" - get them out, that's the best support that we can give them.

Just because we've dug ourselves a HUGE hole is no reason to go on digging.

The one problem, though, is that the US, the UK and other involved parties would have to admit openly that we f*cked up. Despite the fact that [b]everyone[/b] knows we have, that will never happen.

We need to get out, admit that we were wrong, pay for the rebuilding of Iraq and deny our companies a part in that rebuild unless invited. We have to seriously back off from trying to influence the format of the Iraqi government and sit down and shut up unless spoken to. Fat chance.

We'd likely have to beg the UN for help. Fat chance.

Just my two Dinar's worth.

Neil :D

by onbliss

I agree it is a tough situation in Iraq. It is only fair that the task is finished. But the locals and regional powers are not going to let it happen so easily.

by onbliss

Karzai and Musharraf have blamed each other's countries for some time now, and have just stopped short of having a physical fight between them.

It might be that both countries are in a situation that they are really helpless to tackle terror effectively. In Pakistan's case, the blame rests on Pakistan. In Afghanistan's case the blame needs to be shared between Russia, USA, Pakistan and Afghanistan (in the order). Russia has managed to get its hands out after burning all its fingers, but left a devastated war-torn country behind. USA and Pakistan in different times kept fuelling different people there.

Though the locals, in Afghanistan, can not escape some blame, I still pity them because of the outside interferences.

by dawgit

Pretty accurate story. That what I saw here. (in German, of course, and a little harsher)

by oz_media

Unfortunately what most saw ahead of time, is now expected to be seen as 'hindsight is 20/20'. It's an easy but weak defense for those who refused to accept such comments before invading Iraq.

You're right though, what troops? "Spread too thin" gee, I'm sure i heard that before and how quickly it was shot down due to "Americas military size". It was a strong right wing opinion that said there were still troops in Afghanistan and they had enough to be in more than one place at a time.

I guess 'they are right, hindsight really IS 20/20, now if only we had thought of that before. :)

by onbliss

Is'nt a dollar something like 1500 Iraqi dinars :-)

In your opinion what do you think will happen in Iraq after the troops are withdrawn in a 1)short time (the minimum time required considering the logistics) 2)Little longer (phased manner)

Some of the other areas I like your opinions are:
1) Perception of the whole affair:
1.1)From Iraqi persepective
1.2)From Middle-Eastern perspective
1.3)From global perspective

2) Do you think the withdrawal will immediately cause the violence to cease? If yes, why? If no, why?

More questions later :-)

by Member 25348569

I'm off for a lamb jafrezi, pilau rice, naan and two pints of Cobra. Iraq will still be here when I get back!

:D

by oz_media

"The general population has a better grasp of what's going on than I think exists in the US."

Do you feel that they overcensor news and edit anything 'unpatriotic' also?

by oz_media

I agree, but I say leave the Yanks to yank in Iraq. the soldiers apprently want to be there, or at least I am corrected into believing so whenever I comment on reports that they are not pleased with it at all. ("lefty BS" you know).

But I think removing the US troops woul donly go to prove AlQaeda's stregth to thier own members and help increase recruitment at an alarming rate. "America backed down to Jihad?" Now THAT would make front page Iraqi/Afghan news, probably wouldnt hit the US news though. ;-)

The UN? "They are either with s or against us." Damn how some people's retarded comments can come back to haunt them. :D

This is one of those situations where the world gets to glare at the US and say, "you know, I didn't want to say I told you so, but...."

Oh well, we are all wrong anyway, why even think of the end, GWB has it all figured out and is keeping it secret because it is too sensitive for the world to hear. "Uuuum, yeah....oookay, GB!"

by oz_media

But I'll give you an opinion for free anyway.

1) Perception of the whole affair:
Mistake from the beginning, invaded prematurely due to false information, ignored allied wishes, spat on them and the UN, then got in over thier heads.

1.1)From Iraqi persepective
America will help us to be a better place and live life of a western man with lots of riches and opportunity. Saw troops killing family, treated like terrorists regardless of who they really are. just making mess and killing more innocents, while not seeming to make any progress. Life of fortune and promises of a better life looking quite bleak, USA let us down.

1.2)From Middle-Eastern perspective, goo dthing they left us to do our deeds in Kandahar and Pakistan. Focus on the insurgents in Iraq, we have terrorism to plan.

1.3)From global perspective: America once again got cocky and bought into a pack of lies that bastard Bush pushed upon them. Better not be sending our sons and daughters to fight your war, like they did to the Canadians and others. n over thier heads, those arrogant morons are at it again.

Well it [i]was[/i] free after all.

by onbliss

1.1) Don't you think many are thanking for the relief provided from Saddam?
1.2) What I meant was how are the other rulers perceiving this? What are the common people living in the region thinking?
1.3) I know the right winged people, living in other countries belonging to different faiths, are happy USA is taking on Islam. Others see lots of things and have several theories. To sum up, USA has taken a hit on its moral image in several places among all sets of people.

by oz_media

How different the view seen from outside the US is I guess.

Know many people in Europe, they can't believe Blair followed Bush's lead on this one, with the exception of looking to help the repressed. Not at all hapy with the whole WMD isssue that was the premise for the US invasion.

Have seen interviews with Middle Eastern leaders who think it is worse now than before, save the removal of one man several years ago.

Afhganistan is becoming a far more important focus once again though. Out of all remaining forces from over 40 countries, only Canada is left to figh the Taliban an push back to the south. WHen requesting the aid of NATO troops, NATO is finding it harder and harder to find troops to support front lines.

US troops are now being pushed to step up NATO participation and allow NATO to control them in order to better organize deployment inthe area. IF this happens, there is teh possibility that other US troops will be removed (Bush will decid to leave it to NATO) and thus there will be a severe dissention among the ranks as they will be technically left behind by troops that are removed.

It's a touchy situation, and yet when deciding to incvade Iraq, the right waing was touting how wonderful things were in Afghanistan. They refused to accept that things were not finished and were reverting to what they were before.

Now that they have, how is anyone supposed to buy into the right wing BS that Iraqi's will have a better life in a newly rebuilt country and a new future? They said that in Afghanistan and have been proven horribly wrong.

This discussion is closed to new replies.